Trouble with anti-Catholic book/website

[guanophore]

Just because it is said a man can be righteous it does not mean he has never sinned nor cannot sin…

We are not talking about the ability to sin. Yes, God does not remove anyone’s ability to sin, just the desire to do so.

The context of James 5:16 is not about someone who supposedly is in heaven but about the righteous in this world. In fact i can’t think of any passage in Scripture that speaks of someone actually praying in heaven.

It seems that you can look forward to more scripture study, in that case.

According to the Apostles, our membership in the Body of Christ does not change when we pass from this world into the next.

The context again determines what is going on. In Revelation all we see is not a prayer but a yearning for justice and vindication.

Well, we read it differently.

Rev 5:7-8
8 When he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell before the Lamb, each holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

Couple of problems here. One is that we don’t if those who are in heaven can communicate with the living here.

Well, speak for yourself! Those of us who have received the Apostolic Teaching know with certainty.

The only One Who can do that is the Lord Jesus. Secondly, the Scriptures never exhort us to pray to anyone but God.

I think you have a very small understanding of prayer. Worship and adoration belong to God alone, but there are many other forms of prayer. However, I agree that nothing can happen in prayer without the Lord Jesus. It is He who glorfies Himself in His angels and saints.

I understand it and the way Catholics explain it is clear. However, even though it may be clear it goes to far in asserting that we can communicate with dead saints. That is something the Scriptures never teach.

Certainly not! On the contrary, the scriptures teach that those who are in Christ are alive forevermore, and that nothing “dead” can enter heaven. He is the God of the living, not of the dead, for all are alive unto Him. He upholds His saints by the Word of His mouth.

 

[guanophore]

The DC"s were not considered fully inspired until Trent declared them so.

This is a falsehood, ja4. They were considered inspired when Jesus and the Apostles used them. This fact was dogmatically declared at Trent.

These books were called Deutrocanical which was a second canon.

This had to do with the Jewish deportation, and the intertestamental period, not the Christian Church.

 

[justasking4]

where?

2 Maccabees 12:38-46

 

[guanophore]

The DC"s were not considered fully inspired until Trent declared them so.

This is a ridiculous statement. It is like saying that the NT writings were not considered fully inspired until they were declared so at Council in 385.

In fact, the opposite is true. They were declared so because they were considered so.

Actually the NT was finished by the 90’s. It took until the 4th for the church to offically recognize the NT canon of 27 books.

Exactly! They were inspired as soon as they were written, and did not “become” inspired when the canon was closed, just officiallly recognized as such. The same is true for the Septuagint.

 

[jmcrae]

The DC"s were not considered fully inspired until Trent declared them so. These books were called Deutrocanical which was a second canon.

The New Testament also contains a Deuterocanon, but nobody considers those books to be “less inspired” than the Gospels and the Pauline epistles - if you read from the Letter to the Hebrews, or from the Book of Revelation, no one doubts that it’s authentic Scripture.

Neither did the Jews or the Early Christians consider the Deuterocanon of the Old Testament to be “less inspired.” They just have a different human origin than the Protocanon; that’s all.

 

[jmcrae]

I understand that books were removed and I also believe that it was a God inspired decision.

Based on what evidence? What miracle attests to the correctness of this action, and God’s blessing upon it?

Also, how can something that God has shown us by miracles and by the authority of His Church as being Scripture for nearly two millenia, suddenly become not Scripture, any more?

 

[dougfreed]

ok it says pray for the dead not to the dead

2 Maccabees 12:38-46

 

[Pixie_Dust]

ok it says pray for the dead not to the dead

We don’t pray “to” the dead, either. We ask those in Heaven to pray for us, and they are alive in Heaven with Christ, more alive than you and I because they have put on immortality.

 

[adx]

Were Catholics to ask anti-Catholics for information…they would be the recipients of heretical and false information. Were we Catholics to want the “information” provided by non-Catholic and anti-Catholic sources…we may as well embrace the DaVinci Code and all of the gnostic gospels, append our beliefs to combination’s of JW/SDA/LDS/SBC/ and all the rest… and to add a little spice maybe a little nihilistic fatalism…

Why reject the gnostic Gospels? At least the gospel of Thomas looks very reasonable to me. A little thought and you can understand even these more complicated paraboles. If you know the canonic gospels well, it will fit them very well and explain much to you.

 

[RobHom]

Why reject the gnostic Gospels? At least the gospel of Thomas looks very reasonable to me. A little thought and you can understand even these more complicated paraboles. If you know the canonic gospels well, it will fit them very well and explain much to you.

Considering your religious affiliation, or rather…“lack thereof”, I seem to sense a little “humor” in your post.

But to be succinct…I reject them because I have read some of them, and some of them are just plain “wacko”.

 

[Church_Militant]

I understand that books were removed and I also believe that it was a God inspired decision.

I do not sway in my stand. Show me where your 7 books you have any different info that isn’t in mine. I think there could be books that you guys took out that could answer some questions.Show me where the Catholic Church removed any books. You can’t because it never happened, so your assertion is specious at best.

I don’t have to show you any such thing…all I have to do is point to the historically verifiable FACT that the earliest Christian discussions of the inspired canon included the same canon that we Catholics use to this day.

But just for your information as to info that your Bible does not include, here is an example from 2nd Maccabees 12.

[39] On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers.
[40] Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.
[41] So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden;
[42] and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
[43] He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.
[44] For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
[45] But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

If you think the decision to abridge the Word of God was God inspired, then show me any authoritative council that affirms that? You cannot because no such existed nor does such exist today.

In fact, until the mid 1800s even Protestant Bibles included the Deuterocanonical books and then they were eliminated as a cost cutting measure of some Bible publishing society. Where did they get the authority to abridge the Word of God like that? They didn’t. They never had it.

There is no justification for the abridgment of the Word of God that devolved from the Protestant Reformation.

 

[Church_Militant]

The DC"s were not considered fully inspired until Trent declared them so. These books were called Deutrocanical which was a second canon.

Wrong again Ja4. Go back and look at the history of the discussions of the canon by the early church and you will quickly find that they were affirmed as canon as early as 382 and the councils of Hippo and Carthage both affirmed the same in 393 and 397.

Trent merely affirmed what the Church had always stated, and only then because it was under attack by the likes of Luther and some of the other reformers. Yet that same Luther wanted to remove Esther, James, Hebrews, Jude, and the book of Revelation. Not exactly the exemplary kind of scholarship that I would set my Christian faith upon.

 

[Church_Militant]

Why reject the gnostic Gospels? At least the gospel of Thomas looks very reasonable to me. A little thought and you can understand even these more complicated paraboles. If you know the canonic gospels well, it will fit them very well and explain much to you.

The early church rejected them for many reasons. Did around…you’ll see why. I have read some of them, and I can see why they were rejected.

 

[justasking4]

Wrong again Ja4. Go back and look at the history of the discussions of the canon by the early church and you will quickly find that they were affirmed as canon as early as 382 and the councils of Hippo and Carthage both affirmed the same in 393 and 397.

Trent merely affirmed what the Church had always stated, and only then because it was under attack by the likes of Luther and some of the other reformers. Yet that same Luther wanted to remove Esther, James, Hebrews, Jude, and the book of Revelation. Not exactly the exemplary kind of scholarship that I would set my Christian faith upon.

Not so. The church did not consider the DC’s fully Scripture until Trent. Here is what the The New Catholic Encyclopedia says:

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).”

As you can see it was not until Trent rendered an infallible decision that these books considered fully Scripture. It is true that many individuals may have thought they were but what matters is what the church offically proclaims as it did at Trent.

As for Luther he was wrong. He was just like all men capable of error.

 

[guanophore]

Not so. The church did not consider the DC’s fully Scripture until Trent. Here is what the The New Catholic Encyclopedia says:

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).”

As you can see it was not until Trent rendered an infallible decision that these books considered fully Scripture. It is true that many individuals may have thought they were but what matters is what the church offically proclaims as it did at Trent.

Well, ja4, I will continue to repeat what I have told you before. The Catholic Encyclopedia, while a useful reference, is not a source of infallible teaching. Jesus, on the other hand, is. He used and taught from the Septuagint, and that is why it was adopted by the Church. And, just like the NT, it was inspired when it was written, not when it was canonized.

 

[jmcrae]

Not so. The church did not consider the DC’s fully Scripture until Trent. Here is what the The New Catholic Encyclopedia says:

"St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books.

And St. Jerome changed his mind when the Pope declared that they were, in fact, Scripture, as we see by the fact that he immediately began to include these books in his Bible - not in an appendix, as you can clearly see, but in their proper order.

As you can see it was not until Trent rendered an infallible decision that these books considered fully Scripture. It is true that many individuals may have thought they were but what matters is what the church offically proclaims as it did at Trent.

These books were included in all Christian Bibles for more than one thousand years before Trent - Trent changed nothing; they kept it the same.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Mason
There is no historical proof for the Assumption of Mary. Because, it never happened. People discuss if it was “fitting”. That is not the issue. That has never been the issue. It never happened.
I suspect you know that now.

 

[jmcrae]

Mason
There is no historical proof for the Assumption of Mary. Because, it never happened. People discuss if it was “fitting”. That is not the issue. That has never been the issue. It never happened.
I suspect you know that now.

Procude her bones, then, since if she was not assumed into Heaven, then her bones are somewhere on earth, right?

But even though we have the bones of all the Apostles, disciples, and women who were the first followers of Jesus, somehow, Mother Mary’s bones are not among them, nor anywhere to be found.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Procude her bones, then, since if she was not assumed into Heaven, then her bones are somewhere on earth, right?

But even though we have the bones of all the Apostles, disciples, and women who were the first followers of Jesus, somehow, Mother Mary’s bones are not among them, nor anywhere to be found.

Actually the site deals with that question, let me quote:

With Christ, we have all of the “when and where” and by whom was he seen. We know the city, we know the hour, and we roughly know the year despite some calendar errors years later!
With Mary, they are not even sure what city it was (Ephesus or Jerusalem)! They do not have a single person who wrote about what they saw.
In all fairness, if the Bible did not mention the resurrection AND no one mentioned this stunning proof of the truth of Christianity for 300 years, despite hundreds of people writing about him, and then someone attempted to say he was resurrected in Rome or, was it Jerusalem; would you believe them? No, of course not! However, that is exactly what Catholics contend happened with Mary! Catholic Apologists usually have only one desperate rebuttal:
Where are the bones of Mary if she was not assumed?
The lack of bones makes absolutely no sense to them. I have read this excuse hundreds of times. Yet, they admit they have absolutely no idea where she was assumed. It could be Ephesus or it could be Jerusalem. Sacred Tradition does not say. What year or day she was assumed. It could be two years or it could be fifteen. Sacred Tradition does not say. They do not know how she died, or if she died. Sacred Tradition does not say. The Catholics and the Orthodox usually disagree on that major detail. Finally, who was around when she was assumed? Sacred Tradition does not say. They are okay with all of THOSE unaccounted details but not the bones. When Catholicism can clearly state where she was assumed, when she was assumed, if she died, and who was around to witness her assumption THEN let us worry about the location of her bones!
Finally, remember the story of Moses. Moses was the greatest man of his time; it is not a stretch to say his importance for the people surrounding him has no comparison, outside of Christ of course! What does the Bible teach about the burial of Moses?
Deu 34:5-6 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day
That is correct. No one knows where the buried Moses. In conclusion, there is not a Sacred Tradition for the Assumption of Mary. There is nothing but a legend based upon apocryphal sources 400 years after she died

www.confrontingcatholicism.com

 

[Rightlydivide]

This obsession with bones of dead people is late 2nd century with Polycarp. And when you read the Martyrdom of Polycarp, he see they had the decency to bury the man, not pick bones off his corpse.